First one is for all readers here: what do you think about them ? How do they compare from your side against DRMs, and against no "copyright protection" at all ?

Second one, for DRM specialists, I seem to remember that the epub DRMed files contain nominative information, or at least some that can be traced to the "customer", and that the DRM removal tools don't remove this information. Is that right ?

And it it the same with mobi/azw DRMs ?

Last edited by TheSFReader; 09-27-2012 at 08:47 AM.
Reason: Updated to adress remarks regarding terms used

Watermark by far. I see that companies want some ways to deal with people that share copyrighted materials, and this is a good way to do it, since it doesn't make a difference for the user, if a book is watermarked or not.

Both are bad but watermarks less bad in some ways and more bad in others.

To elaborate.

Current forms of DRM are really bad, it gets in the way of legitimate usage, promotes vendor lock-in and a host of other nasty things. On top of that, it doesn't really work that well since cracks are often released. However, even with the option to remove it, customers are placed at risk of downloading dubious software to remove DRM in order to use products in otherwise legal ways (not saying all crack sources are dubious but some are).

Watermarks avoids the problem of preventing format conversion or playing media on a device that whilst supporting standard formats doesn't support the custom DRM scheme used by whichever retailer. That on the face of it is good for the consumer and good for the producer since there's still an element of protection.

Downside to watermarks is, it can be used to identify you. Hopefully any company using watermarks uses non-personal information for the ID and retains a way to match that internally instead. However, if your device is stolen, computer hacked or someone has a grudge against you and decides to replace watermarks from a pirated copy with yours and re-upload it (far fetched perhaps, but technically possible) innocent people could be finding themselves fighting either a court case or paying the bribe letters of "pay us £xxx or we'll take you to court"

Reason I favour watermarks over DRM though, is that for all we know, those using DRM are also watermarking too. One evil is better than two, especially if it's the one that at least provides you a means to use the product how you want (within reason of course)

That's all nit-picking, though, as it's blatantly obvious that this question is about encryption-based DRM.

I agree, although the point was worth mentioning for others who may not have read "full-scale DRM" to mean encryption based or the most restrictive form of DRM.

As others mention, watermarks are still DRM, they're just a middle of the road DRM.

Have to say though, I often say I'm against DRM in posts when what I actually mean is I'm against the current common form of DRM which is encryption based. So that may be why the question was "obviously" about encryption vs watermarks vs nothing to me. It might not read that way to everyone.

If you're going to decry something you should be specfic about what you decry.
Encryption-based DRM is bad? Always?
You ready to decry library lending of commercial ebooks?
DRM, like any technology is just a tool.
Properly used, it enables useful things--misused, it can be an annoyance or worse.

Yes, as fjtorres correctly says, watermarks are unquestionably a form of digital rights management, so to ask "how do they compare with DRM" is a meaningless question.

I'm well aware of the distinction and similarities, (I've written a post on my blog on the subject a few months ago (Water)Markings ? the "French" alternative ?l), but you're right, I should have made it clear in the subject.

I thank you for pointing it out for other readers.

As kevorkian and JoeD have mentionned, my question was more on "Social DRMs" against "Encryption based DRMs".

While you seem quite versed on the subject, HarryT, perhaps you can help answer the second question: Do Mobi/azw "encryptionDRM" encumbered ebooks contain personal information which can be used to associate the ebook to it's customer, and is that information "cleaned" with the DRMs when the widely available tools are used ?

If you're going to decry something you should be specfic about what you decry.
Encryption-based DRM is bad? Always?

Yes.

Quote:

You ready to decry library lending of commercial ebooks?

Yes.

Why? Because library books should be available to everyone* imo. I understand _why_ they use encryption based DRM and it makes more sense than for bought products, however, there will still be people out there who cannot read library ebooks because of the DRM and only because of the DRM.

Got a kindle? Our local library doesn't** support it. I have to check out the book, rip the DRM, (sometimes) convert and copy to the kindle.

Take DRM on DVDs.

This is an example where for the most part it's transparent to most users. It doesn't tend to get in the way as much as it did for music or ebooks. However, that is until you get to Linux users or users who want a media library (e.g on a central home server) who without the DRM would be able to play it fine or rip/convert it no problem. With DRM they've to break it which resulted in a criminal trial against the author.

Another example, iPlayer. For some time it wasn't available on linux because the streams were encrypted. This was a service that should be available to ALL UK license payers and if it wasn't for the DRM, it would have been even without the BBC directly supporting the development of a linux player, one would have been created for free by the open source community. The content would of course be pirated, but then it already is.

That said, I'm more against DRM on content we buy than on content we rent.

* Just to clarify what I mean by everyone. I mean, everyone who could legally read the content if it wasn't for the DRM getting in the way. e.g you have hardware that is able to view the content in that format, then an arbitrary technical restriction shouldn't prevent that. Even if your device doesn't support mobi or whatever format the DRM should not prevent the possibility of format conversion. If there's no way to convert formats at that time, assume calibre doesn't yet support it, then fair enough, but there should always be the possibility that someone could legally add support at a later date.

** Didn't last time I used it, maybe overdrive now supports kindles, however even if they do or add support in the coming year, there will always be more devices than overdrive have developers to support. Devices that their manufacturer or the opensource community could support themselves if only the DRM didn't get in the way.

Yes.
Let's.
Because without even that pathetically simplistic DRM scheme, no major studio would be offering up movies for sale at a price a normal person could buy. No CSS = no DVDs.

It takes two to tango and most commercial vendors won't deal without wrapping the product in DRM. It may be inconvenient to us, it may be stupid of them, but it's part of the price they charge. It's their product, they set the terms. Take it or leave it.
Me, I usually leave it. But people who are into "bestsellers" from the BPHs generally take it just fine. Nobody's died from it yet.

Yes, DRM-free >> Social-DRM > encryption-DRM.
And the sun came out this morning.
You're not going to find many people around here to dispute either.

But it's not something worth angsting over for the vast majority of the human race.

While you seem quite versed on the subject, HarryT, perhaps you can help answer the second question: Do Mobi/azw "encryptionDRM" encumbered ebooks contain personal information which can be used to associate the ebook to it's customer, and is that information "cleaned" with the DRMs when the widely available tools are used ?

Yes.
Let's.
Because without even that pathetically simplistic DRM scheme, no major studio would be offering up movies for sale at a price a normal person could buy. No CSS = no DVDs.

No DRM no music. Hang on, what makes movies any more special than music? If anything, music can be pirated easier than movies too. CDs sold for years without DRM, mp3's sold for a while with then they realised they'd sell just as well without.

With DRM it will be pirated, without DRM it will be pirated. Only without DRM we'll see the development of new industries and companies such as occurred with production of video recorders.

I'm not angsting over it though. If a product has DRM that means I can't use it for what I want, then I won't buy it unless I know I can remove the DRM. That's why I bought DVDs for a long time but didn't buy blu rays until recently. It's why I don't mind buying ebooks from amazon. It's why I won't buy software that requires activation as I can't examine the cracks for malware (unlike the scripts that are often used to remove DRM from books etc)

However, it's not just a question of personal use. It's that people have to rely on tools from dubious sources to remove the DRM, it's that new products and ways of using media have been stifled because of DRM. See the case of the company who developed a way to rip your DVDs and store them as a library on a home server (they even re-encrypted the content during storage to limit piracy) but because that product needed to remove DVD encryption to begin with, it was illegal and never made it.

Last edited by JoeD; 09-27-2012 at 09:18 AM.
Reason: re-read my tone came more argumentative than intended :)